On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 05:49:43PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 11:32 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> > > Sorry if this is an obvious question but what prevents another thread
> > > from doing mmap() before we do the second walk and messing up num_gh?
> >
> > Nothing, I suspect. OCFS2 has a problem like this, too. It wants a way
> > for a file system to serialize mmap/munmap/mremap during file IO. Well,
> > more specifically, it wants to make sure that the locks it acquired at
> > the start of the IO really cover the buf regions that might fault during
> > the IO.. mapping activity during the IO can wreck that.
>
> In addition, the vma walk will become an unmaintainable mess as soon as
> someone introduces another mmap() capable fs that needs similar locking.
We already have OCFS2 in -mm that does similar things. I think we need
to solve this in common code before either of them can be merged.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |